Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 16 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re: Robert B. Surrick.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re: Robert B. Surrick Anchor | green | “the central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of the litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.” | 8 |
| 2 | The Dow Chemical Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Douglas Costle, Administrator | green | “(1) a legal controversy that is real and not hypothetical, (2) a legal controversy that affects an individual in a concrete manner so as to provide the factual predicate for reasoned adjudication, and (3) a legal controversy with sufficiently adverse parties so as to sharpen the…” | 5 |
| 3 | Luu v. Esterly | green | “is a limitation on the state's power to act, but it does not 'impose an affirmative obligation on the state to ensure that those life, liberty, and property interests do not come to harm through other means.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.